To put it lightly, the liberty movement isnt the most successful ideological movement in history. Sure, many people are being introduced to libertarianism on a daily basis. But were also losing quite a few to other ideological groups, including the alt-right.
There are plenty of ways to fix that; the easiest being to abandon the term statist. As convenient as it is to refer to every single ideological opponent with a single word, the term has no other use besides insulting anyone that doesnt agree with you entirely on every issue. In several ways, the term does far more harm than good.
Nobody identifies as a statist. At least, not since 1967. To give credit, I first heard this point from liberalist Carl Benjamin in his video Answers for Libertarians. Since nobody actually identifies as a statist, the term can only be an insult (and authoritarian works just as well).
Its too broad. Statist can refer to anyone that thinks the government should be involved in something in some way, which happens to be just about everyone besides the anarcho-capitalists. Since the term is only used when debating the size of government, its already self-evident that one side supports more government intervention than the other.
Its juvenile. Libertarians are trying to portray themselves as deep thinkers and intellectuals. Were trying to show people that we should be taken seriously. Gary Johnson isnt helping, and neither are you when you replace a well-argued point with the term statist.
If you disagree with me, youre a racist bootlicking cuck. If youre not already on my side, that last sentence probably didnt change anything. Ideological groups take the worst thing they can think of and turn it into an insult. For progressives, it used to be the term racist (and weve all seen how convincing that is). Now, they use white supremacist (as if thats any better). For the alt-right, its the word cuck (if youre not a fan of racial collectivism, see if being called a cuck will change your mind). For Marxists, its bootlicker (because voluntary trade somehow makes you a slave). For libertarians, its statist.
Its not an argument. People wont take our arguments seriously if we dont provide any. Statist is not an argument. In fact, its does the opposite. When your opponent starts hurling insults at you, you know youve won.
You used to be a statist. Most likely you were born and raised with conservative or liberal viewpoints. Its also likely that your path to libertarianism was long and slow. People tend not to go from progressive to anarcho-capitalist overnight.
Assume the person youre talking to might know something you dont. This is Rule 9 of Jordan Petersons 12 Rules for Life. Discussion and debate isnt just about pushing your own ideas. Its also about constantly critiquing what you think you know and reevaluating your positions. If youre engaged in honest debate, the desire to throw out the word statist should never come up. Its always possible (however unlikely) that the statist might be right.
Its lazy. Expanding the liberty movement is hard work. It requires lots of time and energy invested in researching and learning. Its also sometimes difficult to introduce people to these ideas and to answer their questions. For some people its a futile endeavor, while others will come up with loads of counterarguments that need to be addressed. The lazy option is to deal the statist card and give up. Its also the counterproductive option.
Certain libertarian organizations seem to think its a good idea to water down our message to the point where even socialists feel at home in the liberty movement. I reject that plan completely. Instead of watering down our message, why not toss out the more than useless parts, like the word statism, and replace them with a strong case for individual liberty.